23 FLRA No. 8
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2022
Union
and
U.S. ARMY, HEADQUARTERS 101st
AIRBORNE DIVISION AND FORT
CAMPBELL
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1205
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal
filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and concerns the
negotiability of the following Union proposal:
Section 13-6. The union is authorized to prepare, hang, and
maintain signs at/near entrance to Gates 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 of
Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The signs will be restricted to three
feet high and five feet wide. Words on signs will read as
follows:
WELCOME TO FORT CAMPBELL COURTESY OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2022
II. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it
does not concern a matter affecting working conditions of bargaining
unit employees, within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the
Statute. The Union argues that this proposal involves communication
with its members through the use of Agency facilities which is a
negotiable condition of employment.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
Under the statutory scheme established by sections 7103(a)(12), 7106,
7114 and 7117 a matter proposed for bargaining which is consistent with
Federal law, including the Statute, Government-wide regulations or
Agency regulations is outside the duty to bargain unless than matter
directly affects the conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees. /1/ In Antilles Consolidated Education Association and
Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986), the
Authority stated that it will consider two basic factors in deciding
whether a proposal involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit
employees:
(1) Whether the matter proposed to be bargained pertains to
bargaining unit employees; and
(2) The nature and extent of the effect of the matter proposed
to be bargained on working conditions of those employees.
For the following reasons, we conclude that the proposal does not
involve a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees.
Applying the first factor to the proposal we are not persuaded by the
record that the proposal principally focuses upon or pertains to
bargaining unit employees. See National Treasury Employees Union and
Internal Revenue Service, 7 FLRA 275, 284 (1981). Rather, the sign
would merely welcome all people, employees and non-employees alike,
entering the specified gates and advise them of the Union's existence.
Even assuming that the proposed signs pertain to bargaining unit
employees, we cannot conclude, applying the second factor, that hanging
the signs at or near the Agency's entrances would directly affect those
employees' working conditions. The fact that the Agency provided this
service to the union in the past does not, standing alone, make this a
condition of employment subject to the duty to bargain. Maritime Metal
Trades Council and Panama Canal Commission, 17 FLRA 890, 892 (1985).
Further, contrary to the Union's categorical assertion, the use of
agency facilities by a Union is not necessarily a condition of
employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.
The case the Union relies on to support this proposition, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3748 and Department
of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Personnel
Division, Hyattsville, Maryland, 11 FLRA 122 (1983), is distinguishable.
In Department of Agriculture, the Authority found negotiable a proposal
which provided the Union access to the agency's Federal
Telecommunication System during negotiations in order to facilitate the
collective bargaining process. Unlike this case, that proposal was
intertwined with the collective bargaining process and had a clear and
direct affect on working conditions of bargaining unit employees. Here,
to the contrary, it is not apparent that hanging the proposed sign on
Agency property would facilitate communication or in any other way
directly affect the working conditions of bargaining unit employees.
For the foregoing reasons, the Union's proposal in this case concerns
a matter which is not a condition of employment of bargaining unit
employees and is outside the Agency's obligation to bargain. /2/
IV. Order
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and hereby
is dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1986.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) Section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines "condition of
employment" as "personnel policies, practices, and matters whether
established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working
conditions . . . ."
(2) In reaching this conclusion Chairman Calhoun wishes to emphasize
his belief that disputes over proposals such as this one should and can
best be resolved at the bargaining table. The issue here clearly should
not be raised to the level of the Authority. Chairman Calhoun believes
that resolution of this case and others which are similar require the
resources of each Governmental entity, including the Authority, to be
expended in a manner which is inconsistent with the requirement of an
effective and efficient Government. This proposal clearly does not
concern working conditions of unit employees and the dispute over it
serves only to trivialize the labor-management relations process.